get_gmail_threads_content_batch

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral details: uses Gmail batch API (25 per request), auto-chunked, fallback to sequential fetches, and required OAuth scope. Missing details on error handling for partial failures or rate limits, but still informative.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with main purpose, followed by key advantages and requirements. Excellent structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (batch, chunking, fallback), the description covers essential behavior. Output schema exists so return value is documented. Could mention that it fetches thread content (including messages), but still adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds little new parameter info. The description reinforces chunking behavior already noted in schema for thread_ids. No additional semantics beyond what schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states 'Fetch many Gmail threads in one batch', distinguishing it from the singular get_gmail_thread_content. The description explicitly contrasts with looping over get_gmail_thread_content, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly advises 'Prefer this over calling get_gmail_thread_content in a loop', providing a clear usage rule. It details batch API usage, auto-chunking, and fallback behavior. However, it could explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for a single thread).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.